I'm not even upset

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 3:51 pm

I used to live and die with every BG win and loss. Now I'm to the point where I don't even care.

It's really sad, but it's better for my blood pressure this way. Thanks, Gregg.

Rightupinthere · Post by **Rightupinthere** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 4:01 pm

The curse of inconsistency is what BG football has always been about. It's remarkable, really.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 4:01 pm

Welcome to the club, Justin. Hammb and I got to that point a few games ago. Others will be joining soon.

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 4:02 pm

Eh. You beat me to it but I posted the same things, just used more words to do it.

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 4:05 pm

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:I used to live and die with every BG win and loss. Now I'm to the point where I don't even care.

It's really sad, but it's better for my blood pressure this way. Thanks, Gregg.

Yeah, same here.

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 4:08 pm

The EMU loss seemed to cripple us before we ever got started. I felt that loss would cost us any shot at the MAC and felt EMU "upset" us that day. After watching this unfold today again, the bottom line is we just aren't a very good team at all.

Falcon137 · Post by **Falcon137** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 4:14 pm

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:I used to live and die with every BG win and loss. Now I'm to the point where I don't even care.

It's really sad, but it's better for my blood pressure this way. Thanks, Gregg.

+1. I can see this team mailing it in and finishing 4-8 or 5-7.

RedHawk65 · Post by **RedHawk65** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 4:39 pm

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:I used to live and die with every BG win and loss. Now I'm to the point where I don't even care.

It's really sad, but it's better for my blood pressure this way. Thanks, Gregg.

FWIW, I've been there myself this year. Yeah, today's win was great (nice to finally beat a D-1 school!), but I can't really say I "care" a whole lot about this season. Losing to Temple and NIU these past 2 weeks didn't really upset me a whole lot. A 1-5 start will do that to you. Besides, I'm a much bigger hoops fan.

bgsufalcon24 · Post by **bgsufalcon24** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 4:57 pm

Warthog wrote:Welcome to the club, Justin. Hammb and I got to that point a few games ago. Others will be joining soon.

I thought I would be one of the last holdouts as far as living and dying by our results goes. But it looks like I too have succumbed to the pain of expecting bad results on the field. The EMU game was the final nail in the coffin. For the first time ever, I predicted a loss to a team with a worse record and was correct. It's a weird feeling.

NY-BG-FAN · Post by **NY-BG-FAN** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 5:11 pm

I've never criticized any coaching staff. Not even one led by Dan Dakich. I wouldn't trust Gregg Brandon to do my job, so I wouldn't feel comfortable lecturing about his, and his is alot tougher. However, today was very frusturating for many reasons. Kind of spoiled my only trip to the Doyt this season.

I like the designed QB runs. They've been a successful cornerstone of our offense for a while, and essiental to any team that runs the spread. However, they lose their effectiveness when everyone in the house knows it's coming. It's happened so much lately. When AT or Freddie is back there, everyone knows what's coming. Many times it still works, but it kills us when the D is so prepared for it on 3rd and short. The plays with Sheehan as a decoy WR are no longer working, that formation no longer fools anyone. Obviously Josh Harris was THEE run/pass QB, and Tyler isn't. Even if Sheehan isn't the best passing QB in the world, he's a good player. Let's just keep him behind center for a whole game and let him throw it. The more we do it, the better I think it could get. We've got some fast guys that can get downfield (Parks, Wright, Pronty). It just frusturates me that we take the ball out of Sheehan's hands so often.

I don't really know anything about football, other than that I'm a big fan, so that's my only criticism I guess. What a bummer today was.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 5:30 pm

With Harris running the show, we usually paired him in the backfield with an RB (Pope/Lane). That opened it up a bit more because the play could go to either one in either direction. Now we just sit AT back there by himself. There is nothing else for the def to worry about. The LB come up at the snap and are meeting him in the hole. It's too easy to stop.

Just another reason why this insane two/three QB system doesn't work. They leave Sheehan out there and the def can play pass. You put Turner/Barnes back there its a run. Pretty simple.

I didn't see much of the game today, but listened to a lot. But I looked at the box score and see that Bullock and Geter combined for three rushing attempts. Turner did have 12. But how many of Turners were direct snaps where he really lined-up at QB? My real question is trying to figure out how many times we actually ran the ball with what would have been the RB. I'm going just estimate that at least half of Turner's carries were direct snaps. That means we only really ran the ball with a RB less than half a dozen times. That is, quite simply, pathetic.

NY-BG-FAN · Post by **NY-BG-FAN** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 5:33 pm

Geter and Bullock got very few touches today. Bullock did have one nice long run on a screen pass in the first half though.

BGGrad01 · Post by **BGGrad01** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:57 pm

Warthog wrote:My real question is trying to figure out how many times we actually ran the ball with what would have been the RB. I'm going just estimate that at least half of Turner's carries were direct snaps. That means we only really ran the ball with a RB less than half a dozen times. That is, quite simply, pathetic.

That half a dozen estimate may be a little high. It seemed like the vast majority of Turner's touches were on direct snaps. Why would we try anything other than a direct snap to AT? He didn't have any success running the ball last weekend.

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:06 pm

BGGrad01 wrote:
Warthog wrote:My real question is trying to figure out how many times we actually ran the ball with what would have been the RB. I'm going just estimate that at least half of Turner's carries were direct snaps. That means we only really ran the ball with a RB less than half a dozen times. That is, quite simply, pathetic.
That half a dozen estimate may be a little high. It seemed like the vast majority of Turner's touches were on direct snaps. Why would we try anything other than a direct snap to AT? He didn't have any success running the ball last weekend.

Plus he knows how to throw the ball. He wasn't the best QB but if you are going run those plays all game, all year, you have to pass once in awhile. I just don't get it. When the average fan knows what play is coming, there is something really really wrong.

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:07 pm

I am more interested in Ball State than this current product.

I'm not even upset

I'm not even upset

Re: I'm not even upset

Re: I'm not even upset

Re: I'm not even upset